Abuse of language

Remain propaganda is often used by the mainstream media to describe features of Brexit.

We are told we need to avoid a No Deal Brexit. No-one is proposing one. If we leave on 31st October as promised without signing the Withdrawal Agreement it will be a multi deal Brexit. There will be a Customs Agreement, an Aviation Agreement, a Government Procurement Agreement, a Haulage Agreement and many others. Remain muddles the Withdrawal Agreement which does not offer anything by way of a future partnership with things that can help.

We are told we will fall off a cliff edge. Why? Most nations trade successfully with the EU without being members. Calais has assured us the vehicles will flow with their exports to us after we have left, just as we import easily today from many non EU countries.

We are told we will be short of medicines and food. No main continental supplier wants to cancel their contract with us. Our border is currently a VAT, Excise and currency border. The calculations and payments are done electronically. So can tariffs be handled if we end up with some on food.

They say they are defending Parliamentary sovereignty! They mean they are holding the government hostage to try to perpetuate the mighty EU powers to legislate over us, to tax us and to direct us in many ways. These are the MPs who gave away massive powers of self government over the years whilst telling us they had not done so.

Their use of words like cataclysmic or a car crash is wild and untrue. They are trying to create negative feelings, and out to depress investment optimism. They have no confidence in our country and scorn the people for our decision.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

232 Comments

And the old and vulnerable and those who simply accept the dreadful propaganda without researching for the truth are worried to death.

The ‘Remaniac’ MPs, Establishment and MSM who push this nonsense should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Right will, however, eventually prevail and then the absurdity of the scaremongering will be revealed.

Have you, yourself, ever used a generally reliable, peer-reviewed site such as the European Union’s own, Reuter’s, the University of Oxford, ONS, or even Full Fact etc. to establish facts as far as reasonably possible?

More delusion from Martin .. who peer reviews EU websites or even UK government sites such as ONS?

Who are the peer’s of these organisations?

The Full Fact “neutrality” process involves a cross party board of Trustees with the three big political parties represented. Given actions and attitudes from these organisations towards Brexit why would anyone therefore trust the neutrality of Full Fact in such matters, or related issues of political consensus such as AGW.

Unfortunately leavers have ceded the language to the remainers and by repeatedly stating “no deal is better than a bad deal” leavers have given remainers a powerful instrument to fan the flames of project fear. The WA/PD has been falsely described as a “deal” but this deliberately misleading because it does not provide an agreement on the future trading arrangement. What ever happened to “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” as stated in EUCO XT 20004/17 under Core Principles paragraph 2?

I agree with Sir John and leaving the EU without a comprehensive trade agreement should not be described as “no deal” but rather a limited temporary agreement under which a free trade agreement is negotiated and the future relationship with the EU is arranged. Some may say that the WA/PD provides but they are wrong because it gives the EU total control and keeps the UK locked in to a one sided treaty with the EU holding the key. It would be impossible for the UK to reach an equitable trade agreement under such a “deal”.

Pominoz – The “Remaniac MPs” you refer to are not fit to be referenced as MPs, however they refer to themselves as honourable which is far from the truth. Out of 650 MPs how many of them actually represent their constituents – very few in comparison? Look at the HoC during debate periods – it is EMPTY compared to PMQs. This one of the many reasons why they want to stay in the EU, they do not have to do anything. Most are carreer politicians.
Unlike the USA, we the Brexiteers do not have a single supporting main stream media platform in the UK there again look who owns the MSM, the globalists. The Anti-Brexit rabble that come out onto the streets are funded by the globalists, fully assisted by the police and judiciary and are given publicity by the EU funded left wing BBC. How much media coverage have you seen of the French yellow vest movement.?
We must LEAVE the EU at all costs with no strings or tenticles and take back our sovreignty.

Yet the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg says that Boris overstepped the mark just by saying ‘humbug’ and ‘surrender’ to some screaming & hysterical Labour woman.

Newsnight last night had Michael Grade defending the BBC “impartiality to the BBC is sacrosanct” sure mate, certainly not sacrosanct on the EU, climate alarmism, magic money tree economics, lefty PC drivel, identity politics, renewables and many other total lunacies.
He also says but they are always against racism – how do they define racism I wonder? They are certainly not against ‘sexism’ they are endlessly telling us how much better women are a multitasking, managing investment risks, communication, languages, team work ….. they clearly often advocate active discrimination by law against (usually white) men.

If you rule out no deal you are saying you will accept any deal that the EU offers – however appalling it is and why would they then offer anything fair. The only people saying “Nobody voted for no deal” is someone who wants to ignore the referendum and just revoke the notice & remain in the EU.

There is, of course, no such thing as “no deal”. Deals will be struck in all sorts are areas where they are mutually beneficial. What we must have is nothing that locks the UK in in any way to EU rules or courts that we cannot overrule.

That’s not mind reading, that is a fact. No deal Brexit was not on the ballot paper. And all the leaders of the Leave campaign, from Gove to Johnson to Hannan to Farage, said there was no chance of no deal because we’ll get a great deal. So where is it?

Youre right no cheese was on offer , only staying and then seeing what happens, or leave and then see what happens. We chose leave, lets leave THEN see what happens

This pile of made up nonsense spouted by the losers sounds like football supporters blaming the ref, cheating, ball not crossing the line, never a penalty etc etc etc the perennial whinge of the losing side

However to claim a mandate for one, given the marginal vote, it would be necessary for about sixteen and a half million out of the seventeen and a half million to have consciously voted FOR a no-deal exit.

Given that all the Leave campaigns said that there would be a deal, that is self-evidently absolute nonsense on stilts.

Try checking a peer reviewed factual website such as I dunno the EU website, then try reading up on how you leave the EU. You will find that surprise surprise the only way to leave is by triggering Article 50.
IT DOES NOT OFFER A DEAL BEFORE YOU LEAVE

So 17.4 million did indeed vote to leave. The remain side then invented the meaningless term NO DEAL. By the way we now have 44 deals in place. You might want to fact check that and stop posting ironic fake news

Technically they did not vote for no deal, nor did they vote for any specific deal, they voted to Leave. Those who voted to Remain did not vote for degrees of Remain, they wanted to stay in the EU, end of story.

Where were these Remainer extremists when the then PM, David Cameron et al (including Grive, Hammond and Osborne) stated on numerous occasions before the Eu referendum that a vote for Leave was a vote to leave the Single Market, Customs Union, an end to Freedom of Movement, not being subject to the European Courts of Justice, and that we would trade on WTO.
It appears they have very short memories/lies and deceit or they didn’t know what they were voting for.

Dear Stephen–What nobody voted for – and this with absolute certainty – is Remain and as it happened I for one did and do hope for No Deal because I believe it will be best for the long term if we go though a period of minimal involvement with the wretched EU and their ghastly mindset. In any event the idea of a long period without a Trade Agreement is, given we are their largest customer, for the birds

Indeed, the mainstream media gets ever closer to the propaganda chant “Four legs good, two legs bad” The problem is that the mainstream media can chant louder than the speakers of common sense such as John Redwood. John is sadly in a parliamentary minority… The Brexit Party are picking up voters as they are capturing the hearts and minds of the silent majority that voted to leave..

I would like, once again, refer our kind host and other contributors to this site, to the Oxford Union Debate (1975) and the speech given by, Peter Shaw. At 20m:30s in he says;

“And the message that comes out is, FEAR ! FEAR ! FEAR ! Fear because you will not have any food. Fear of unemployment. Fear as we have been so reduced as a country that we can no longer totter about in the world, independent as a nation.”

I would put a link to it but, our kind host does not like them and I respect that. But if you want to watch it for yourselves, the I suggest you search for, ‘Oxford Union Debate (1975)’ on YouTube.

To coin a phrase by a former American President. “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

Dominique Grieve (elected on a promise to deliver Brexit but afraid of the voters) is fond of saying leaving will be ‘uniquely damaging’. Indeed unique in that it will be a great advantage in the medium to long term to be democratic and in control of our country, laws and taxes again.

So Javid thinks increasing the minimum wage (banning low paid workers from working) is a good thing does he. What an economically illiterate dope – but then there is an election coming I suppose.

I make the calculation that someone on £10.50 an hour working a normal 40 hour week will take home £8.69 after tax. On the current £8.21 an hour national living wage he could take home £8.69 an hour if the NI and income tax thresholds were raised, in addition to the employer’s NI level being raised and the employer gives the benefit to the employee. An equivalent £10.50 an hour could then be achieved with no damage to the employer. Is this what the Chancellor has in mind?
Personally, I think we should oblige Eastern Europe to raise their minimum wages to match ours, otherwise we shall be the victim of unfair advantage.

To become Chancellor it seems you best chance is to be an economic illiterate dope. Major, Brown, Osborne, Hammond and now Javid it seems. Might we not soon have one who actually understands that 25% of a booming and much larger GDP is far better than 50% of an economy that is being strangled to death by over taxation, regulation and expensive energy. Also that ever £1 the government takes it delivers at best 40p of value back and much of it is spent actually doing positive harm to the wealth creating sector, the economy, generating parasitic jobs and in misdirecting investment and effort.

Agreed.
Higher minimum wages are going to price people out of employment and the increased costs will make some businesses uneconomic. Paying young workers the same wage as older ones will make them less employable. There will also be knock on effects on differentials, putting up all wages in the company. This should not be a Conservative policy!

So I take it you’d rather pay more taxes in order to subsidise cheapskate employers by increasing in work benefits rather than have those employers pay the workers whose labour they are profiting from a decent hourly wage?

If you would like customers to pay £5 for a loaf of bread and £7 for a pint of milk by all means put up the cost of producing these goods. Of course the wage increase you have arbitrarily given workers is then still no use because they cant afford the products they need to buy

( ps the last time a labour government started messing on this scale it ended with mass unemployment and the closure of some serious industries)

You have clearly never run a business

ps in a free world you dont have to work for “cheapskate” employers its YOUR choice who you sell your labour to and how much you get for it

I take it you’d much rather have your taxes increased to subsidise low wages than keep more of your own money to spend on what you choose.

The minimum wage isn’t even set at the level that the Resolution Foundation consider the real basic minimum, yet every time the minimum wage is increased we hear this same rubbish. To borrow a description of it from somewhere else, it’s “Project Fear”.

It’s also not a completely free labour market as the government interferes in the market by choosing to sanction those on benefits who turn down job offers. By doing so, they also have a responsibility to interfere to ensure that there is a baseline minimum for the jobs that they are requiring those people to accept.

1) The DWP DO NOT sanction people who turn down job offers , its a myth

2) Less than 8% of the workforce earn the minimum wage

3) We have the lowest number of low paid workers in history

4) another 200,000 workers moved their earnings above the living wage in 2018

5) It is TOTALLY a choice of workers for whom they work. If their skills and abilities warrant higher pay they can get it . If they dont then they need to upgrade their skills

6) Youre right the government interfered by setting a minimum wage. I counselled against it at the time as it became a benchmark and some employers use it as a fixed guideline instead of responding to the market

7) Most low paid jobs will be automated within the next 10 years

8) No its called arithmetic not fear

9) You haven’t got a clue about business or employment

There are 814,000 unfilled full time jobs in the UK and the average wage is £29,855 pa

The problem is that minimum wage also hits non-profits, e.g. animal rescues. While larger charities like the RSPCA might be able to absorb such an increase in costs, smaller rescues (like some of the ones I provide services to) employ people who would otherwise be unemployable who, at minimum wage, tend to make more than the organisers – hardly fatcat cheapskate employers.

Their solution to the last rise was to cut hours and ask for more volunteer time to fill in, but it gets to a point where certain jobs go altogether due to insurance and employment overheads, which don’t drop.

We had all that when the minimum wage was introduced, but it was successful, if not generous and has endured.

Why does someone who owns properties for rent and property abroad and says he is a multi millionaire, think he can say that some people should work for him and others for a wage that is below the poverty line? Businesses cannot run without profit, why do you think individuals should be able to? You can well afford it and so can most others. If they can’t and rely on in work benefits to keep them afloat, they have no right to be in business.

Increasing the minimum wage will accelerate the use of AI and robots. Many jobs for unskilled workers will vanish overnight as they become unprofitable.
This is what happens when you try to outshine the Socialist flank of government

The foreign citizens will continue to have jobs because of the gang master employment scheme they will be cheaper than hiring Brits.

“Javid thinks increasing the minimum wage (banning low paid workers from working) is a good thing”

I heard Savid Javid’s speech announcing a raise in the minimum wage to give millions of people a “well earned pay rise”.

How can be be sure it’s well earned?

Each time the govt raises the min wage he also gives the Treasury more tax. The min wage should be pegged to the tax free allowance to stop the Chancellor virtue signalling while helping himself to more of our money.

It saddens me to see an MP from my party openly lying. It will not be a multi deal Brexit, as you well know – there are no agreements (on customs, on aviation, on haulage), there are only unilateral mitigations imposed by the EU , with the UK having no say, and they will be in force only as long as it suits the EU to have them, again the Uk has no say

This debate is all about consequences. When Brexit finally happens, as it will, at the end of this month or possibly later, we shall see who prophesied correctly.

If Remainers are right, responsibility will fall on the people at large who will have got what they asked for. They will have the pleasure of adding to our self-inflicted burdens by howling “Told you so!”

If, however, Remainers have got it wrong, they can expect the fate of all false prophets who preach fear, dishonour, defeatism and surrender. I hope it will be exemplary. Never will it have been better merited.

I can see how the likes of Airbus will be wanting to immediately complicate the importing of engines and wings from the UK. Then it will be free to begin selling fuselages – without wings and engines – to Tube operators around the world.

President Trump awaits with open arms across the Atlantic though. And then there are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and large parts of Africa which speak English. You can fly across the world in a few hours nowadays and e mails take no time at all. If business demands, business gets. And that goes for Mercedes, Lambrusco, Camembert and Rioja too.

The EU’a own rules insist that the EU seeks friendly and cooperative relations with its neighbours. Do we not count?

IF, as you say, the arrangements for aviation are one sided and they can withdraw them at any time, why would they do that? Something I have always observed is that politicians really don’t do things that are not in THEIR interests. Unilaterally closing their airspace to flights from the UK would actually mean the end of the EU as the backlash in Europe would sweep the EU away.

If the UK remains in the EU as a full member or in the colonial status WA then it will be the case that the UK will have almost no say in its affairs.

The Lisbon Treaty applies QMV to many important areas such as the EU budget, foreign affairs, armaments, justice, border checks, asylum , immigration, transport, energy, freedom of movement, social security, defence, etc. etc. so all these matters will be decided by 27 other countries, soon to be increased to 34 other countries.

The budget is already is already controlled by recipient countries.

And any existing vetos don’t exist as Mr. Cameron found out in 2011 when the EU simply invented new rules to stop him applying our veto.

I think you will find it is not quite “27 other countries” as the new QMV rules state that the requirement is 55% of the votes and 65% of the population. This by some weird coincidence is the total that the Euro countries achieve. Therefore it seems to me that the Eurozone countries will be totally in charge. Who’d a thunk it?

I am not inclined to disbelieve Sir John, however, if what you say is indeed the case, I am confident that given the EU’s vested interests in the smooth running of all the things you mention, there won’t be a problem.

It saddens ME that there are people who show no loyalty or faith in their country.
MinC – if you really believe this evil intent of the EU, why on earth do you and your ilk wish us to remain shackled to it?
If you did some proper research (instead of just believing what you read in Facebook and the Grauniad) you’d know that everything our host says is correct. To call him a liar shows how ill-informed and bitter you truly are.
By the way – haven’t you noticed? Brexit was never all about trade.

Isn’t this type of language exactly what Sir John is commenting on in his article?

So the EU will not want to land their planes in the UK, or use our air space. It won’t want to sell us their cars, food and medicines. The Irish will not want to drive through the UK to get to Europe anymore or export their meat to us?

There will always be two sides to any negotiation and when one of them sells twice as much to the other – then it certainly should not be one-sided…

There has been an aviation agreement in place for over a two years. How do you think they can adopt their flight times if no agreement.
Customs papers are done at source. The customs receive documents prior to arrival of cargo. It is all done online. The only issues are white van man.
Do some research.

Not being a party to any agreements made or pending , I do not believe Mr Redwood is lying , I have read elsewhere that agreements and understandings are in place to deal with Aviation for example after Brexit
Further , there is no requirement , other than good practice & manners , under Article 50 for the UK to negotiate anything with the EU , the onus is on them to seek , not have , a deal with the leaving party .
If Brexit ever happens the EU will trade with the UK under WTO rules and most favoured nation requirements .
The Financial Service industry & Banking is the one being argued about I think , with little publicity , as that is where the money is now and in the future , the EU are trying to move the financial industry from the City of London to Frankfurt .

Truth is nobody knows how it will be if we leave without a WA- we will be in complete limbo territory. Some bits of what you have listed above might work ok but others not so- for instance the sweeping statement that “Calais has assured us..etc” does not wash- what exactly does ‘Calais’ mean?- Calais is a huge port- all it would take is for one segment say the agricultural health inspectors to go ‘work to rule’ and then what?

You say- most nations, presumably you mean far away nations, trade successfully with the EU..etc etc- Yes!- but not according to JIT Ro-Ro trade- am afraid your ERG thinking is too clouded by your dream for Britain to resume its place in times past- but it’s that’s not going to happen- we have to get real

Sensible people see the hypocrisy in their victimhood. It’s all ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

This has gone beyond Brexit, and it is now a fight to retain what little democracy still remains.

None of us will forget that we were taken into the EU without electoral consent, and further treaties were agreed without electoral consent. Parliament agreed to let the people decide and should honour their own promises. We were warned about the ‘armageddon’ that would occur if we voted Leave. Therefore, you could say we did vote to become poorer. We chose freedom to be a sovereign country once again, and Parliament is trying to prevent it. I don’t believe we will be poorer (if we have a honest Parliament that works for the UK), but if that is the price we must pay then so be it.

Why on earth would a country, run remotely by the anti-democratic, socialist, economically incompetent EU (who have no interest in the UK’s welfare and are charging a very large fee too) be better off than a proud, independent democratic one run in the interests of its population and directly controlled by them?

Then again in the short term we might get Corbyn/SNP and Venezuela, but I do not thing voters will be quite that stupid will they?

Yes, this has gone beyond Brexit. The Remoaners (Neo Illiberals) are fighting for their very existence, because once Brexit has happened they are finished!

The day after we have left, the public will be doubtless be surprised to find that we are neither up to our necks in frogs and locusts, nor are we killing one another as millions of unemployed fight to get a handhold on a piece of driftwood for survival as the UK is visited by a Deluge of Biblical proportions.

At this point many, many people, who believed project fear will realise they have been conned – then the support for our independence will surge, and the Remoaners will be finished!

Andy, you have a point, of course. But that analysis is contingent on us not having left. If we do leave then the dynamic changes. The status quo section of the population would change sides. Would there be a clamour to re-join?

Not that old chestnut again!
The CAP impoverished countries in the developing world by imposing barriers and subsidising dumping of it’s surpluses on their traditional markets and depressing their incomes.

The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, but the British people (apart from you apparently were not given a vote on the matter until 2016.

I have been helping my daughter with her A Level geography homework this weekend. We discovered that the Eurozone countries have a combined debt of almost €10 trillion. However, we suddenly realised that the ECB has been buying this debt off these countries as well. Apparently the ECB have created new Euros and bought €2.5 trillion in recent years through QE. Based on my calculations the combined Eurozone and ECB debt is €12.5 trillion. Any bumps in the road due to Brexit will be of nothing compared with a Eurozone banking crisis. Best get out before things turn pear-shaped.

By the way, we also noted that the European combined GDP will drop by 15% once we’ve left. No wonder Brussels doesn’t want us to leave!!

The BBC and Channel 4 should be ashamed of themselves, trying to spread fear and panic. Last night on Channel 4 news, the Presenter was positively salivating at the prospect of ‘riots in the streets’. He was insisting, they were going to happen.
This point of view is meat and drink to the Media, as they sit in their comfy studios, well away from the action. They disgust me!

So at last we have it. After three years of a secrecy, false starts and hard questions we have finally seen the Brexiteers plan to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

And their plan to avoid A hard border is to have three hard borders. Genius.

As for the numerous agreements you mention above, they are agreements in the sense that the EU27 have agreed them with each other to protect the EU – and they have told us what they are. We haven’t been involved in negotiating them at all.

Depends what you mean by a hard border Andy.
There currently is a border.
There are different currencies on each side.
There are many different tax and duty rates on each side.
There are currently thousands of border “guards” in the form of Police and customs official protecting ports, airports, roads and railways.
The difference will be marginal when we leave on October 31st.

Good points, an Irish friend of mine pointed out that if you thought there was no smuggling going on already you must be an idiot, all the incentives for smuggling (different currency and tax) are already there and won’t change, the idea it would be massively ramped up afterwards doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

As has been endlessly explained to you and the other trade ignorant remainers on this blog there are three parts to international trade/borders

1) Regulatory/standards of products

This is done at product manufacture time and is NOT inspected at borders and is the responsibility of the importer/agent

2) customs declarations, duties, taxes and import/export paperwork

This is done electronically

3) The physical border

At which you show a passport and paperwork. A vanishingly small number of goods are stopped & inspected at the border and usually as the result of a tip off or criminal investigation

The suggested customs checking points are no different to other countries who all dont check at the borders. The SINGLE customs check point for France is 40km from Calais and the Dutch central check point is 71KM from the ports

You would be better off worrying about your beloved EU being found guilty of illegally subsidising businesses

“Michael Gove will launch a new ‘rapid rebuttal unit’ at the heart of Government on Monday to provide instant responses to “media myths and half-truths” about the risks of a no-deal Brexit.

The new Response Unit will be run by civil servants in the Cabinet Office and will ensure that “the public and businesses are not being alarmed by scare stories or falsehoods “, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Senior Government figures are known to have become frustrated over the anti-no deal stories aired by the BBC in recent days, notably one about cows being slaughtered in Northern Ireland after a no deal exit.”

Google this one Denis.
Below are some of the main take-outs from an analysis of online news in 2018 undertaken by the UK Government’s Rapid Response Unit (RRU). It covers Brexit, viral stories, and top publishers. Building on previous work, the analysis showed just how far and fast misinformation can spread online.

No deal is not planned, negotiated or professional. It appears to be both sides sticking their fingers up at each other, which benefits nobody – especially when the withdrawal agreement is ready and waiting.

@Leaver
It’s people like you that have encouraged intransigence by Brussels. If the country had stood together and supported an FTA the EU would have more readily come to terms with the outcome of the referendum.

BTW, you’re not fooling anyone with the “false flag” moniker, you may as well be honest and change it to “EU shill” or “Andy 2”.

I often wonder how many Mp’s have read the Lisbon Treaty, and all the others before it which they passed, and which slowly took away their ability to Govern our/their Country.
Likewise I wonder how many have read The Five Presidents Report of the future plans, where yet more power will be centralised in Brussels.

The only way to get better democratic accountability is to select candidates locally, and have a right of recall, then we may start to heal the rift between the people and Parliament.

As for words, they object to surrender and turkey’s, but are happy to use armageddon and catastrophic.
Fake rage is not a good look, especially when some have used the very words or phrases they now object to, which are on record as having used themselves in years past.

It might be worth reading “Why we get the wrong politicians” by Isabel Hardman (from the Spectator). At times very funny, often depressing, never boring. And it gives a rather crude light on the Palace of Westminster and its inhabitants.
The first chapter “Getting In” makes me wonder whether your second paragraph is of any value, given the real obstacles to anybody not already at ease financially to run a campaign and the rather limited support of the established parties afterwards whether one has been or not elected to Westminster.
A real eye opener (to me, at least).

I spend a lot of time talking to MP’s, government officials and other assorted people. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be so ignorant of the ways of the world, totally ignorant about business, trade and employment and spend their entire time spouting cliches and virtue signalling

We really do need a massive reform of our pathetic so called democracy

John, your piece seems to be premised on the assertion that getting divorced is like never having been married in the first place.

These non-member countries, which trade with the European Union did not start from the position of being members with all the advantages, and then trying to move backwards, and very abruptly from that, which is an enormous difference.

They evolved from being distant from the European Union to having closer ties.

Hint it has NOTHING to do with governments/trade deals , its about buyers and sellers

Its a startling fact that Remainers are either people that haven’t got the remotest clue about business/trade OR are big multinationals using the EU tax avoidance schemes and influencing EU directives to remove innovative competition

And the people most guilty of endlessly either using, or allowing to be used, language such as ‘catastrophe’ and ‘cliff edge’ – the BBC – in these momentous times, clearly felt that yesterday the most important factor was a report about a thigh being touched. Why are they never challenged by those being interviewed? Why do they put up with the constant interruptions?

I was at a firm’s do once. The woman sitting opposite me while we were dining rubbed her foot on my inner thigh. I’m wondering now if I should report the matter. Mind you, it was about 40 years ago so she might not be around to face the music

And on R5 this morning a local CBI official was wheeled out by the BBC to assert how a hard border between the ROI and Norther Ireland would collapse the economy and lead to a resumption of The Troubles. And did the BBC probe her on these points? No. It just let her spout her propaganda, without challenge. When suppliers fail me, I boycott them for a year. When Brexit has finally been delivered, the CBI needs to banned from Whitehall for a similar length of time – or until it stops making things up.

It’s a propaganda war by people wanting the best “soundbite”.
MPs and public figures will stick a comment out and don’t really care that they may have to recant it because it isn’t true: they are hoping that mud sticks.
The recent furore over “humbug” and “surrender bill” which the BBC and other media has lapped up is just this kind of nonsense: the really indecent thing is what MPs are shamefully do to our democracy, they deserve a few hurt feelings and a guilty conscience.

It is a contemporary use of “fear” as an instrument of persuasion. It is used because more often than not it works. Once upon a time it was fear of “hell and damnation”. In today’s secular world it is fear of “global warming” or “cancer” or most apocalyptic of all “extinction”! The Remainers Project Fear is a subset of the species. The promotion of fear is the tool of choice for the ardent propagandist. It usually works because most people do not have the time or inclination to investigate the foundations of the claims. Furthermore the various fears are promoted with the application advanced techniques of persuasion. This is not always obvious but from time to time the mask slips and such programmes are revealed – as with the “global warming” campaign in the 2000s.

In 1998 during the European Parliamentary Election Bill debate, Tony Benn referred to his oft said 5 questions to exemplify why it was a bad Bill.

“What power do you have? Where did you get it? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?”
Reference: Commons Hansard [16 Nov 1998: Column 685] Volume 319 Debate on: European Parliamentary Elections Bill , from 7.20 pm

So I am reasonably convinced he would not support his son’s surrender document?

We are talking here about the EU, not a normal state. It is the EU way or the Highway. So we shall see what they demand (again) on 31st October. Unless Boris Johnson decides to “obey the law” and chicken out. In which case, Nigel Farage will clean up.
Or – worse – divide the vote so that the despicable, mean and increasingly hypocritical Remainers get in led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The threat of medicine and food shortages appears to be tied to the threat
of queues at the ports “caused by the imposition of tariffs”. What does Labour
mean to do with import vehicles in order that its zero net CO2 goal may be
met? MPs, elected post-referendum, cannot address “tariff queues” after three
years, but can devise a recharging strategy for electric import vehicles in ten?

Your response to the so-called remain propaganda is nearly as bad in terms of the language used. “holding the government to hostage” in a Parliamentary democracy.
“EU powers to legislate over us” like we were some EU colony.

This is not the language used by somebody seriously arguing there case, it is similar to what you are criticising, Not you day Sir JR

We are witnessing the attempted staging of a coup. That is a bunch of people with no mandate , against all the established rules trying to seize power in order to try to overturn a democratic vote.

At the same time we watch an organisation that pretends to be for the peace and prosperity of its members deliberately thwarting that in a fit of pique that we’ve had the temerity to leave. Just like with Italy and Greece this EU organisation are trying to foist an unelected government onto our country in order to retain control. The EU are acting like an Imperial power

Sir John, if you were not there, we would need to invent you. Thank you for your positive post and for your continued optimism for a positive outcome. I have become convinced there are sinister forces at work and only people of your disposition can defeat them.

Project Fear is the their only defence, sorry answer, to our Leaving the EU. It has been from the announcement of the Referendum. Why? Because there is only one reason to Remain in the EU and that is to become a fully fledged, subservient region of the USE. That is the honest and only platform for diehard Remainers but they know this full disclosure and admitting of our wholesale loss of sovereignty since Major is the death knell of their argument in a true democracy. We have witnessed in the last 3+ years the battle,sorry, for this fragile state.

Applying totally inappropriate emotive language to a completely pragmatic situation. That is how the Left uses language to manipulate.That is how it has pulled the wool over the eyes of erstwhile rational politicians. So terrified of seeming “ nasty”.
Trade, government, law etc should not be imbued with emotional soundbites…and when it suits they are definitely not.
(How is it that left wing, spitting and abusive protesters in Manchester are not marched quick smart to Belmarsh?).

I do not like what I see and hear from Labour, Libs, SNP etc. They completely lack any candour whatsoever, they’re extremely rude, foul mouthed yobs who’ve chosen the ways of hatred, sectarianism and jealousy.

If they think their disgusting behaviour will wash with the electorate then they’re away with the fairies.

To be honest it’s like a breath of fresh air when, for example, I see Mr Rees Mogg giving interview. A highly principled and dignified man, the country needs more like him.

So true what Sir John says in this piece today.
When you go to a B&B and are seated and waiting for breakfast, you half expect the hostess to say “How would you like your Brexit done dear, hard or soft?”
Well, in three minutes frankly, not three years!

The more I see of Boris the more I love him and I am so pleased he will not allow the remoaners to shut him down on the word ‘surrender’. The truth hurts as they say. Boris comes across as courteous and restrained at all times despite the vile vitriol that comes out of the mouths of many of the opposition hurled in his direction.

Sir,
It seems to me that to be accepted as “the right sort of person” one must express belief in certain things- the EU, global warming, the U.N. etc.
Since beliefs are adopted in the basis of “what gets you in with the in crowd” facts and reason don’t matter. Challenge those beliefs and you either get a sneer, abuse, or hastily invented facts (or all three).
It is impossible to reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into.

If you foollow the Department of International Trade on Twitter they list each deal as its done, tell you who and how far the negotiations have got

The fact that BBC, Sky , ITV and Chan 4 News NEVER covers any of this, in the same way they dont cover any of the 1,000’s of new jobs, factories being opened and new developments that happen each week tells you which side the “news” organisations are on

“our fantastic NHS” when stats show fairly high proportions of the public think the NHS is crap, and its fair to assume at least similar proportions of politicians think the same, yet you will struggle to find a single politician prepared to be honest about the NHS

politicians bend words, and highjack talked about causes, to fit their own attempts to gain influence or power, its what they do

especially in this country where the quality of the whole political class is really very poor indeed

until we see real reform of the political candidate selection process, and a real drive to change the poor quality of recruits into the political class, then not much is going to change.

anyways its largely the BBC and main stream media pumping this nonsense out, and I see little appetite to start reducing the size of the state, handing more power to individuals, including removing the licence fee and handing the payment choices to individual citizens, as a proper Conservative party would do

Conservative H0me has been pro Brexit form the start and going back many years – this is what Paul Goodman had to say

“…No Deal really would mean what it says: in other words, leaving the EU without any agreement at all. To describe this as trading with its members on WTO terms is accurate but incomplete. Doing business with another country or group of countries on such terms takes many forms – usually, including side-agreements. This type would have none…..”
AND
“It is therefore a misnomer to speak of a “managed No Deal” –”
AND
“What the EU has announced to date is a unilateral preparedness programme. It would be inaccurate to describe this as a series of mini-deals ”

Now this is from an extreme pro Brexit campaigner and might I point out that the whole “frustrate the people” thing is pure nonsense . No Deal has no mandate and a large majority prefer to stay as we are according to the last poll offering a choice of those two options.

Not in my experience although I think the relationship of a web site that supports Conservative Values and the new Brexit Party is not without complexity. I wonder sometimes if some of the Conservative Party will like the monster they have made as much as they think they will

Well Goodmans piece may have been accurate if we didn’t have the side deals and roll over deals that we have in fact got. So his fears are unfounded as we now ALREADY have 44 deals in place

You will need to provide evidence to the contrary as the last 2 polls I saw Comres and YOU Gov both showed a healthy lead for just leave

Any how I’m still waiting for you explanation about why the city has STILL not moved to Frankfurt an event that you assured us was imminent 3 years ago. Further I would like to hear from you as to why recruitment in the city is at record levels when you claim its all moving out. I’d also like an update on your firms inability to find a way to continue working in the EU post Brexit, when everyone else has managed to do that

I don`t know why you keep claiming it is my view that the City will move the Frankfurt which is hardly likely, there were still working canals in the 1950s .
There are clearly prodigious new barriers to trading in the EU and trading form the EEA to the UK . the Bank of England has published an excellent piece on operating a branch office in the UK by the way which mysteriously omits the words …
” Ask some web-nut and just stick a brass plate above a kebab shop in Dublin” ….although capital requirements inwards are 25% for a branch office
Perhaps they also need your advice ?
U Govs Poll of the 1st of October show that a clear majority think the UK was wrong to vote pot leave the EU (49% to 40%)
Survation on the 25th has 51 % remain to 45 % leave

I’ve just read an article on Conservative Woman, written by John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave.

He is very concerned about a meeting on 17 July where Stephen Barclay was giving evidence to the Select Committee for Exiting the EU with regards to us leaving with “no deal”. Jeremy Lefroy MP and Hilary Benn MP (chair) asked him questions.

Ashworth is concerned that the answers revolved round, ‘continuity’ and ‘building reciprocal arrangements.’ Continuity of what? The Common Fisheries Policy? We only get 1/10 of fish from that…

Ashworth is also concerned that there was an impression given of fear of french fishermen blockading Channel Ports, and the U.K. capitulating.

He hopes this has changed under Boris, but would like some reassurance.

Sir John, do you know if there has been any change? If not, it does sound rather unsatisfactory and yet again, in favour of the EU. And it’s doubtful, the situation would ever be changed, to benefit the U.K. at a later date.

I heard an excellent suggestion that in the event of queues of lorries at the UK ports trying to reach the EU we should prevent lorries from the Republic of Ireland from entering the UK. After all, they’d have nowhere to go to so it would be pointless making the journey. (Not that I believe there will be queues).

Our whole EU entanglement was about the loss of faith our establishment had in our country and its people . I understand it was not unusual to hear Foreign Office officials saying that they wanted ‘manage our decline’. This defeatism has been endemic in our country for the last 40 years and not just as is evident in our relationship with the EU where they have been prepared to corrupt our constitution to fulfil their EU dreams, but we also see it elsewhere, like calling British people lazy and good for nothing compared to the ‘hard working immigrants’, or finding nothing of value in our culture, unless of course it has been ‘enriched’ , which is a backhanded derogatory insult. It is also evident in the lack of investment the British state has been prepared to put into technology here, where its been easier to give up and buy nuclear power stations from China or jump jets from the USA than maintain the technological lead here, which is why it was good to see Boris saying he would invest £200 million in fusion reactor development . Lets hope this is a beginning and we have a PM who has faith in our country to become independent, value our culture, and back our people to develop new technologies and industries. Of course it we do then be ready for the sneering insults of being nationalists.

Talking of abuse of language … why are we still talking about the Leave vs Remain dialectic?

Everyone (34million plus people) who participated in the referendum held the view that the majority vote would be the future that would prevail. I can’t imagine anyone who participated in any referendum (the Brexit one, the Scottish Independence one etc etc) thinking that majority view would be ignored. Just because the renege view is the Establishment view doesn’t mean it should be respected.

This comment is long and with multiple paragraphs, but I make no apology. You will do with it as you see fit.

‘No Deal’ is not a complete misnomer. The side deals of which you speak are temporary measures agreed with the EU. They are not a ‘Deal’ in the sense of clinching a lasting settlement.

Other countries do trade perfectly well with the EU, but they are not abruptly exiting an existing, comprehensive trading arrangement. Our economy has become hugely entangled with that of the EU. This is a big reason why people want to leave! Furthermore, disentangling ourselves from the EU economy is one of the potentially great rewards of leaving.

Questioning European companies desire to trade with us is obviously silly. However, recognising that UK-EU trade will be more difficult with us outside of the single market should be simple. Leaving the single market will make trade with the rest of the world easier – a significant advantage for the UK. But let’s not pretend there isn’t, literally, a trade off.

Like it or not, Parliament is defending its own sovereignty. That Parliament is so dysfunctional is a collective failure, though particularly of your party. Parliament is sovereign, because the people have lended it their sovereignty. If the people judge that Parliament has abused their trust, and I very much hope they do, then they will have the opportunity to deliver that judgement in due course. That your party doesn’t get to choose precisely when we have a GE is, in and of itself, not remotely undemocratic or unconstitutional. And again, if a GE was desired, it could have been had directly after BJ was elected. His mistake.

Your last paragraph is very broadly accurate, but just because the opposition are, ultimately, reprehensible, does not mean that your lot are therefore the champions of Right and Good. Geoffrey Cox judged this Parliament to be dead. He was referring to it taken as a whole. The truth is that the necrosis stretches out throughout the entire body politic. Yes, even you and the other Spartans, being fully paid up members of a demonstrably failed party, are terminal cases. Sadly, zombies may persist in rising. The question is, To what extent will the people reanimate this Parliamentary corpse? As always in democracy, the people get what they vote for.

It’s going to be a self fulfilling prophecy, sadly. The remain forces will blame everything bad on Brexit, with many cries of “I told you so” along the way.

And yes , in a sense , we did vote to be poorer, in that Project Fear 1.0 did not deter (enough) people. I know several remain voters who voted that way based on “head over heart” and now regret that decision, having witnessed the actual behavior of Brussels, as opposed to the supposed (unicorns and teddy-bears) attributes they were supposed to have…..

At the back of it all is a level of intellectual indolence that should be astonishing in people operating at what is generally reckoned to be a high level in the leadership and management of the nation. It is so much easier to use the language of drama than to take the trouble to have a full understanding of how things work and what the real effects, and then to put this into words that are clear and comprhensible.

This really annoys me . The media, reporters and those trying to make a name for themselves use language of high drama which in its use lowers the tone considerably. This naff usage of language is simply not appropriate for the importance of Brexit issues. Where language is used from different backgrounds and is not too offensive there is an implicit understanding of its derivation and the fools who want everyone to speak like them only display their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of democracy and freedom.

Abuse of language is the subject. Labour MP Mathew Pennycook, campaigned on the Labour manifesto to leave. He, for 3 years had the job of a shadow minister for leaving the EU. In his resignation letter he says he wants to now campaign for remain.

Saying you are going to do one thing, then really intended to do the opposite, I call that an abuse of language.

I do agree that using the term “multi deal” is a more accurate way of describing the situation, but are you able to answer the following questions and concerns that I have:

Which of the “multi-deals” are actually in place and ready to use from day 1 (or even day 100)? What timescales should we expect?

What happens to the areas where the deals are not in place and ‘ready to use’?

What are the impacts (particularly, at this stage, in relation to Ireland) of there not being an acceptable deal in place for areas of ‘criticality’?

What happens in the interim(s) as the multiple deals are negotiated?

Who is going to do all this negotiating?

What Trarrifs will be applied to what goods? Who knows? What’s agreed? What will be the impact of applying these tarrifs – on prices, on business efficiencies and cost-effectiveness?

What will be the impact of the amended administrative overheads on documentation and declarations required on imports and exports (not just to the EU, but to EVERY country with which we trade with – based up on our relationship with the EU)?

10 minute rule bill put forward to create the office of Acting PM accountable to the Commons. Welcome to Remain authoritarianism EU style. British democracy is now under direct attack and they will try and neutralise it

At last, telling it like it is. The Withdrawal Agreement is not a deal as such, it is not a trade agreement, it says nothing about the relationship going forward.

Article 50 says that the WA needs to take account of the future relationship, yet the EU insisted that we do it the other way round (and May simply accepted that, I wonder why).

In doing so they were able to create a WA that covered much more ground than it needed to – e.g. if we knew that we had a FTA that specified no tariffs on food, we wouldn’t need a border. And we certainly wouldn’t need a backstop (not that we do anyway – the EU’s position is rather silly since it is obvious that a WA need only do whatever will be done if we leave without a deal).

The article above is the strongest wording I’ve seen yet from JR. It’s about time some pro-Brexit people started hammering home the message.

‘Irish Border Urgent Question’ ( in the event, in the plural) The House, BBC Parliament LIVE.
Mr Benn (Labour MP )( Not in the Labour Shadow Cabinet whatsoever in any way, at all, just not there ) asked approximately nine questions necessarily in a lump seemingly on behalf of The EU High Command in loyal obeyance to its whim, wit, and most good intention, we are sure. James Dudderidge ( Conservative MP )( Exiting The EU Minister) answered on behalf, most certainly on behalf of we British people in effect that he did not wish to divulge the negotiating strategy of our very British team to the EU via our Parliaments noisy hear hears with their hearts and minds across the Channel in French lands and German hands and lands. And sat down. A good answer!

Absolutely, John. Why aren’t the government and ‘Leave MPs’ countering the scaremongering with these simple facts? On becoming PM, Boris Johnson said that one priority was spending £100 million in promulgating the benefits of a clean break from the EU. This hasn’t happened. Why not?

You are 100% right. So, ask yourself what should be done with these people after we have won through and Brexit has been proved not to be a disaster. The electorate will know how to deal with Remoaner politicians but we still need to flush out Remoaners from what Nigel Farage has called the pro-EU Deep State.

I have previously set out what I think ought to happen. I re-emphasise my proposals for indirect election of the Supreme Court and the House of Lords. A Lords Appointments Committee and a Supreme Court appointments Committee, both about 15 strong, would be chosen by universal suffrage. I think we should start off with a ‘big bang’ approach.
All of the existing peers and Supreme Court justices should offer to stand down.

I would be interested to know Sir John’s opinion on this proposed reform. What cannot be tolerated is that the current pro-EU Supreme Court and House of Lords carry on spreading their poison and effectively being agents of a foreign power.

There are far too many mediocre career politicians in the Tory ranks, a lot of which were put there by Cameron in an attempt to replicate his own views. Power to select candidates should be returned to the Conservative Associations and a proper recall system should be available to constituents. As my MP is the impressive Mark Francois, I can only imagine what the constituents of Dominic Grieve think about the way their MP is behaving and pity their powerlessness to do anything about it.

“They have no confidence in our country and scorn the people for our decision.”

That’s probably because nearly half of us voted Remain and you Brexiteers try to ignore and sideline us. The language you use to achieve your ends is that of spurious injured pretence that anybody who tries to stop you riding roughshod over us is denying you your sovereignty and enslaving the country.

No wrong, what is ridiculous and has never happened before in a once democratic country is that the LOSING side demand to get what they want by IGNORING the winning side

If remainers hadn’t have thrown their toys out of the pram, gone on a pillage of vitriolic abuse and violet threats they should have campaigned for EFTA membership as a compromise . BUT you didn’t you just screamed, shouted and cried

You should learn to lose gracefully Margaret. All you have done is created populism right across this land. It will never be the same again.

I have wanted Scottish independence all my life. I lost the vote and moved on. I cried my heart out at nearly 50 years old, but respected the result of a democratic referendum.

I have also wanted to leave the EU all my adult life. I won this one so want this democratic referendum to be honoured.

I do not want it all and have my cake and eat it. I learned to lose gracefully and you are not taking this win from me just because you do want it all and change a democratic result after you have lost.

Margaret, since the referendum Remainers have done their best to sideline and ignore Leavers. We have been characterised as uneducated, racist, old and willing to selfishly sacrifice the hopes and dreams of the young. These falsehoods are used to justify ignoring our decision to leave the EU. If that decision had not been ignored, we wouldn’t still be in the EU.
You complain about being sidelined. How would you personally have wanted the desire of Leave voters to exit the EU to be acted upon if Remain had won the referendum? What do you think would have happened?

Margaret Howard. I hardly think that over 3 years of debating in parliament and on the TV until we are sick of it is ignoring you. The majority of people voted to Leave and I wonder how much time we would have been given if the vote had gone the other way. I think I can tell you – none! So why don’t you just accept the result of a democratic vote? As it is we will probably have to live with a compromise so you will be able to say you weren’t ignored.

Because just for once I agree with what Nigel Farage said just before the referendum:

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

The result of the referendum was nearly 50/50. I can’t see how this can be called democracy when half the population, especially the young people are going to be deprived of a future in a global world.

Reply to margaret howard. Most people who voted Remain have now accepted the Majority decision to LEAVE.
Most MPs in Parliament were elected on a manifesto to HONOUR that democratic decision.
People like you who do not respect that decision, which was an example of the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE making their decision known, people like you are trying to destroy OUR CONSTITUTION. Which has been built over many Centuries. It is not perfect. None are. But it is a d**n sight better than the EU.

Mr Cameron ( Ex-PM) was on CNBC yesterday being interviewed. He was eloquent and was not really critical of Boris and the way we are going out of the EU.
I notice accents when they are different. He has rounded his Os . Oh yes. They sound oh so nice. Where did he buy them?
I have heard British Officers a sliver under the Top Brass speaking sO. It beats fighting for a living.
But why? Is this or was his normal slang?
One does not wish to be in the 600 O-ers unsaddled unfighting unreal. Better to ditch such limited debilitating utterance. People could vote you down unable to understand your entirety. Mork my wards. Exclamation mark.

Hi John and all. This is not so much a comment on todays Diary. It is something I’ve been wondering about.
There is a land border on the island of Ireland between the EU and what will be a non EU country. Surely the EU has other land borders with non EU countries. How are things managed there?
May’s Withdrawal Agreement was just about 100% not – acceptable. It was NOT leaving. It was basically what the EU would prefer instead of us leaving. I sort of understand why the PM has attacked it via the backstop.
What I do not understand is why that Border is such a BIG ISSUE.

Try putting a hard border somewhere through England and see how you like it. What if the Germans had invaded in WW2 and put a border between north and south England and in the meantime nothing changed, do you think it would still be acceptable to English people one hundred years later to allow an extra buffer border zone ten miles wide be imposed in on top in the same political border just to enforce EU and WTO rules- I don’t think so

I find it entertaining how the extremists on both sides are constantly accusing the other side of exactly the same things but with the opposite goal: lies, manipulation, subversion of democracy, attempting to instil fear, repeating the talking points without challenging them… there’s a certain poetic symmetry there.

I think that this country would be in a much better state if people were willing to confront their own prejudices and entertain the notion that maybe they’re not right 100% of the time. Instead of considering it your duty to educate those who disagree with you, maybe spend more time reading, listening, understanding the viewpoints that don’t match your own. Otherwise this circus is just going to run forever.

Abuse is only abuse when Lefties and Remainers and their friends in the broadcast media say it is. Simple.
They confect rage over something tangential such as the well chosen words of others in order to deflect attention from their own machinations. A simple ruse to condition us simple folk, except it doesn’t.

Towards the end of her life, I became acquainted with Professor George Rudé’s widow, Doreen Rudé. Irish by birth, her honed intelligence dissected the English character with clarity and wit.
A year or so before she died, she told me she wanted her epitaph to be: “She never meant well”. Seeing the confusion on my face, she took pity on me and explained: “People who mean well rush into situations they don’t understand and create chaos.”
Indeed.

I’ve noticed that the BBC doesn’t seem able to write anything about the Conservative conference without shoehorning the touching allegations and the Mayoral conflict of interest allegations into the article regardless of what the article is about.

And as for misleading reporting, currently BBC have a headline

“Trump asked Australian PM to help investigate Russia inquiry”

but in the article, way down it says

“Australia’s ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, wrote to the White House shortly after Mr Trump’s announcement offering to help with any review, Australian media reported.”

Will be interesting to see if the Scot’s did have another referendum and voted for independence how long they’d be prepared to wait for it to be implemented and how many of the current Brexit issues (e.g. border) would suddenly become non-issues and easy to sort out during the campaign.

According to the Express the ERG is going to give in to the deal. The deal that gives primacy to the ECJ ,takes control of our military and intelligence, and makes EU citizens here super citizens .. really?

Although I agree with you article and your comments about preparations in regard to a No Withdrawal Agreement scenario, the problem is that there are not enough people getting out there shouting this out and taking down the ridiculous arguments about a catastrophic no deal. By allowing them to control the conversation and not rebutting them, they are winning.
Every minister should be saying this about their own departments, ministers should be on news programmes saying this repeatedly, putting it out on social media, on current affairs programmes, QT and so on. If this is not done then people will stay scared and act accordingly.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.